Re: SGX vs LSM (Re: [PATCH v20 00/28] Intel SGX1 support)

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 03:45:50PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 02:02:58PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On May 15, 2019, at 10:16 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > There is a problem here though. Usually the enclave itself is just a
> > > loader that then loads the application from outside source and creates
> > > the executable pages from the content.
> > >
> > > A great example of this is Graphene that bootstraps unmodified Linux
> > > applications to an enclave:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/oscarlab/graphene
> > >
> > 
> > ISTM you should need EXECMEM or similar to run Graphene, then.
> 
> Agreed, Graphene is effectively running arbitrary enclave code.  I'm
> guessing there is nothing that prevents extending/reworking Graphene to
> allow generating the enclave ahead of time so as to avoid populating the
> guts of the enclave at runtime, i.e. it's likely possible to run an
> unmodified application in an enclave without EXECMEM if that's something
> Graphene or its users really care about.

I'd guess that also people adding SGX support to containers want
somewhat similar framework to work on so that you can just wrap a
container with an enclave.

/Jarkko